Santosh Kumar Dubey vs State Of M.P & Others

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by 9th Additional Sessions

Judge, Rewa in Revision No. 254/2018 in which Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa affirmed the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Appellate Authority

i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest, Rewa arising out of order dated 17.07.2018 passed by competent authority i.e. S.D.O (Forest) , Bedhan District

Singrauli whereby the authority confiscated the tractor with trolly bearing registration No. UP64-W-4454 of the petitioner.

According to the case, on 17.10.2017, during patrolling, the Forest Officials saw a tractor bearing registration No. UP64-W-4454 coming from

restricted area. The tractor was loaded with sand. On asking the driver, he disclosed that he is transporting such sand from Kundwa Nala which

comes under forest range Waidhan, District Singrauli. He did not have any valid document for transporting sand.

Therefore, the officials has registered the case under Forest offence No. 197/14 dated 17.10.2017 and seized 1.68 cubic meter along with tractor-

trolly. Confiscation proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and information was also sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Notice was issued to the petitioner/applicant. During the inquiry, Competent Authority i.e. Sub Divisional (Forest) Officer found that alleged tractor-

trolly was involved in forest offence. Therefore, he passed the order of confiscation of tractor trolly with sand. Thereafter petitioner/applicant filed an

appeal before Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Conservator Officer, Rewa. The appeal was dismissed on merits then petitioner filed criminal revision

before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa which was also dismissed by the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is purely illegal as petitioner had valid

transport permission of T.P. No. 1175 and T.P. No. 1600249984 given by Rajkumar Bais who was the retailer of sand and sold the same to present

petitioner on 17.10.2017. There was also permission for engaging the tractor in Government work under the scheme of “Pradhanmantri Awas

Yojna†and as per order of Government, any vehicle working in the panchayat work cannot be seized. It is also evident from the record that

petitioner/applicant wants to settle the case on the basis of compromise. Both parties filed compromise petition for compromising the case but

competent authority did not accept the same and passed the order of confiscation without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. There is mala fide

on the part of respondent No. 3-Forest Guard who asked money from the petitioner/applicant. Petitioner is unable to give any amount to the

respondent No. 3 then he seized the vehicle and trolly. Petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is kept in open place then it will

be damaged. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order of confiscation and releasing tractor trolly in favour of petitioner. In support of his

contention he has relied the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10

SCC 290.

On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for respondent State opposes the petition and submits that this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not

maintainable as full procedure is prescribed under Forest Act for availing the remedy against the order of confiscation, therefore, this Court may not

be passed any order under inherent jurisdiction. He cited Section 52(b)(5) of the Indian Forest Act contending that the order of revisional Court is

statutorily provided to be final with a further rider that same shall not be called in question before any other Court not withstanding anything contrary

contend in the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the aforesaid he prays for dismissal of this petition.

Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

Since, the learned counsel for the respondent raises objection regarding maintainability of this petition. The above said provision containing the

statutory bar is reproduced hereinunder:-

“52B(5) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) the order of the Court of Sessions passed

under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question before any court.â€​

On perusal of above said provision, it is evident that the order of Revision shall be attained finality and neither under the India Forest Act nor under

the Cr.P.C., the same can be challenged. Further, in the case of State of W.B. & others Vs. Sujeet Singh Rana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 12,9 the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can be exercised in relation to a matter pending before a “Court†which in

the context of Cr.P.C would mean a “Criminal Courtâ€. Further, the Higher Court held that jurisdiction of Criminal Court stood excluded under

Forest Act, once the confiscation proceeding were initiated, however, High Court can exercise such a power only in exercise of its power of judicial

review. Further, co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of The State of MP Vs. Manish Kumar Garg passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2640/2015 held that

under Forest Act, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against the order passed in revision petition by the Sessions Judge. Further, the

Court held that an order passed in Revision under Section 52-B of the Forest Act can be challenged in writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Therefore, in such circumstances this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, the only remedy to the petitioner is to invoke the

power of judicial review or of Superintendence under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed being not maintainable.